X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from omr-m02.mx.aol.com ([64.12.143.76] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTPS id 6914528 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:36:19 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.143.76; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mce02.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mce02.mx.aol.com [172.29.27.208]) by omr-m02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 87DF5700000B8 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-mla002a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mla002.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.186.80]) by mtaomg-mce02.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 5B8D038000082 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:35:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high Message-ID: <76100.5e314ab.40bca24f@aol.com> Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [LML] Undercarriage bolt clearance To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_76100.5e314ab.40bca24f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [24.14.166.87] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1401636943; bh=IyNfJ1cdH6F5Ks5W6D2Wo+A+gqJWs48Z5yUXutx85dQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=uepo2a7c/jqP5SnrRiHFO8QYboxb1WvcrKkZDu9+ACIydmRcVpW2tm7cnAjZ2JLlB EklpIRomztHqkxDKjEtbYAVwbKxuv9xl+/wF72O0Z4yUoJwSPvfA2rYgdN39z1/3iA S782QKsl21oTfb/T/98otij+YxV9EfGj/RDCdpuM= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d1bd0538b484f5e30 --part1_76100.5e314ab.40bca24f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Rob, =20 Would it be possible to move GM4 forward (shave off stub wing surfaces that= =20 it mounts to)? If so you could insert a washer at the leg pivot to return= =20 it to its original position and also a washer for anything else that's=20 attached to GM4 requiring repositioning.. =20 Scott krueger =20 =20 In a message dated 6/1/2014 8:44:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, =20 stevens5@swiftdsl.com.au writes: =20 Dear Lancarians!=20 Another question from down under. Sorry, it=E2=80=99s a little complex to= =20 describe, but I will be as brief as I can.=20 Firstly a bit of history. I purchased my LN 360 kit partly built some 9=20 years ago, which came with the original undercarriage. I have since fitted= =20 the outback gear, which is what is pictured in the attached photographs. I= n=20 fitting the outback gear, and, not counting the airframe changes required,= I=20 simply removed the old gear and installed the outback gear. All seemed=20 well until I tried retracting the main gears. When doing so (fortunately o= nly=20 by hand) I found the head of both the left and right side AN6-32A bolts=20 which secure the over-centre links to the gear legs (see fig 5-2 on page 5= -6=20 of the FBM), were striking the GM4 alignment bracket as the leg retracted= =20 into the well. After some thought and discussion with local builders, I=20 decided to remove .090=E2=80=9D from the Over-centre Linkage Boss (Ref Fig = 5-22-2 page=20 5-31). This would move the bolt head rearwards, and hopefully give me the= =20 required clearance. This it did. However, the reduced space between the =20 AN970-6 washer and the GM1 weldment (i.e. the gear leg itself) compressed t= he =20 coils of the rat trap springs, restricting their movement, and resulted in = =20 permanently bending the arms of the springs such that they would not now st= ay =20 engaged with the over-centre link when the gear was retracted. Not good! So= =20 I installed a couple of washers on the Over-centre bosses to return the=20 space for the spring to the original specification.=20 At this stage, the only solution which works, at least whilst it is on the= =20 ground, is to grind down the heads of the bolts, as you will see in the=20 photographs I have done, to ensure clearance. However, I am not sure that= =20 this is an acceptable solution in terms of structural integrity of the hea= d of=20 the bolts. The load on this bolt I imagine will be mostly in shear, so is= =20 it an acceptable solution? I am not an engineer so I don=E2=80=99t know ho= w to=20 tell.=20 So I am interested to hear if anyone else out there has come across this= =20 problem, and if you did, what was your solution. =20 As always, I do appreciate the input from you folks.=20 Regards,=20 Rob Stevens=20 Perth, Western Australia=20 (Yeah, that place where we=E2=80=99ve lost MH 370!!) -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm= l --part1_76100.5e314ab.40bca24f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
Rob,
 
Would it be possible to move GM4 forward (shave off stub wing surfaces= that=20 it mounts to)?  If so you could insert a washer at the leg pivot to re= turn=20 it to its original position and also a washer for anything else that's atta= ched=20 to GM4 requiring repositioning..
 
Scott krueger
 
In a message dated 6/1/2014 8:44:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 stevens5@swiftdsl.com.au writes:
=

Dear Lancarians!

 

Another question from down under. Sorry, it=E2=80=99= s a little=20 complex to describe, but I will be as brief as I can.

 

Firstly a bit of history. I purchased my LN 360 kit = partly=20 built some 9 years ago, which came with the original undercarriage. I hav= e=20 since fitted the outback gear, which is what is pictured in the attached= =20 photographs. In fitting the outback gear, and, not counting the airframe= =20 changes required, I simply removed the old gear and installed the outback= =20 gear. All seemed well until I tried retracting the main gears. When doing= so=20 (fortunately only by hand) I found the head of both the left and right si= de=20 AN6-32A bolts which secure the over-centre links to the gear legs (see fi= g 5-2=20 on page 5-6 of the FBM), were striking the GM4 alignment bracket as the l= eg=20 retracted into the well. After some thought and discussion with local=20 builders, I decided to remove .090=E2=80=9D from the Over-centre Linkage = Boss (Ref Fig=20 5-22-2 page 5-31). This would move the bolt head rearwards, and hopefully= give=20 me the required clearance. This it did. However, the reduced space betwee= n the=20 AN970-6 washer and the GM1 weldment (i.e. the gear leg itself) compressed= the=20 coils of the rat trap springs, restricting their movement, and resulted i= n=20 permanently bending the arms of the springs such that they would not now = stay=20 engaged with the over-centre link when the gear was retracted. Not good! = So I=20 installed a couple of washers on the Over-centre bosses to return the spa= ce=20 for the spring to the original specification.

 

At this stage, the only solution which works, at lea= st=20 whilst it is on the ground, is to grind down the heads of the bolts, as y= ou=20 will see in the photographs I have done, to ensure clearance. However, I = am=20 not sure that this is an acceptable solution in terms of structural integ= rity=20 of the head of the bolts. The load on this bolt I imagine will be mostly = in=20 shear, so is it an acceptable solution? I am not an engineer so I don=E2= =80=99t know=20 how to tell.

 

So I am interested to hear if anyone else out there = has=20 come across this problem, and if you did, what was your solution.=20

 

As always, I do appreciate the input from you=20 folks.

 

Regards,

 

Rob Stevens

Perth, Western Australia

(Yeah, that place where we=E2=80=99ve lost MH=20 370!!)



--
For archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--part1_76100.5e314ab.40bca24f_boundary--